Mr. DICKSTEIN. Without objection the bill will be favorably reported. Mr. CANTRELL. You will recall that when Mr. Collins was here he mentioned that he had an amendment to offer. He has asked me to call it to your attention. On page 5, line 12 he recommended deleting the name of "James. E. Arnold" and substituting therefor the name of "J. A. Riddell." It is my understanding that the amendment is agreeable to everyone. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Is he an Indian attorney? a letter Mr. CANTRELL. No, sir; a representative. I have seen from Arnold stating that he will not object to the substitution. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Is that agreeable to you gentlemen? Mr. CANTRELL. It is my understanding that it is perfectly agreeable to Mr. Rayburn. Mr. RYAN. What do you say, Mr. Richardson? Mr. RICHARDSON. It does not affect me. Mr. RYAN. Have you been dealing with Mr. Riddell? Mr. RICHARDSON. I have had some dealings with Riddell and I have also had some dealings with Mr. Arnold and it is a matter that they will have to settle. My understanding is Arnold will not object. Mr. DICKSTEIN. What is the full name to be inserted? Mr. CANTRELL. J. A. Riddell. Mr. DICKSTEIN. The point is that you are only substituting the name of Mr. Riddell for the name of Mr. Arnold. You are not adding anything more to the bill. All right, we will report it out favorably to the full committee and with the amendment referred to. [75th Cong., 3d sess., Mar. 28, 1938] SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON SENATE 1478 The Court of Claims subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1478) entitled "An act conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claims of the Choctaw Indians of the State of Mississippi," having considered the same, report thereon unanimously, with the recommendation that the bill be reported favorably to the House of Representatives with an amendment: On page 5, line 12, after the word "of,” strike out "James E. Arnold" and insert in lieu thereof "J. A. Riddell." The amendment recommended by your subcommittee does not in any way affect any rights granted by the bill. All that it does is change the identity of the representative named in section 5. This amendment is consented to by all interested parties. A hearing was held before your subcommittee on March 21 and March 28, 1938, at which appeared the authorized attorneys of the Mississippi Choctaws, representatives of the Department of the Interior, various Members of Congress, and their representatives. STATEMENT OF FACTS Of all the tribes of Indians the white man found when he came to this country, the Choctaws were one of the most advanced, cultured, and peaceful. It is not disputed that the Choctaws have ever been the friends of the United States and her citizens, and have rendered invaluable service in all the wars of the United States. Originally the Choctaw Tribe owned more than one-half of the territory within the boundaries of the present State of Mississippi. After the acquisition of the Mississippi Territory by the United States, it was inevitable that the proper development of the area as a State required and demanded the cession by the Choctaws of a large portion of their lands to take care of the demand created by the influx of settlers from the Eastern Seaboard. Therefore, on October 18, 1820, a treaty was concluded between the United States and the Choctaw Tribe, by which they ceded a large portion of their Mississippi land in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi River in the Indian territory, which comprised all of the lands afterward known as the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. It was not contemplated or desired as an effect of this treaty that any Choctaws would remove from Mississippi to those Indian territory lands. In the decade from 1820 to 1830, the influx of settlers to Mississippi was accelerated and within a few years many thousands of white people had settled in the Mississippi Choctaw country, many of them as squatters on the lands retained by the Choctaws by the treaty of 1820. This rapid development of the State of Mississippi created a greater demand for the further curtailment of the remaining Choctaw lands in Mississippi and required the removal of a majority of the Choctaws to the lands acquired in the Indian territory by the treaty of 1920. As a result, on September 27, 1830, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (7 Stat. 333) was concluded between the Choctaws in Mississippi and the United States, the purpose of which was to induce the Choctaws to remove to their Indian territory lands. By the provisions of that treaty, the Choctaws who would so remove and give up their lands in Mississippi were to share in a large annuity, as well as in certain other cash benefits and inducements. A substantial portion of the tribe were unwilling to leave their homes and go to the new lands in the West. Although this group amounted to only about one-fourth of the tribe, the commissioners were soon convinced that any treaty. for removal could not be negotiated without recognition of the rights of those desiring to remain in Mississippi. So, in order to get the greater portion of the Choctaws to remove and thus make available for sale their valuable lands in Mississippi, the United States recognized, by article XIV of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, the rights of those who wished to remain, guaranteed to them their rights as Choctaw citizens, and provided that they were entitled to allotments in the Choctaw lands in Mississippi. However, since the purpose of this treaty was to effect the removal of as many of the Choctaws as possible, it was specifically set forth in the said article XIV that any who chose to remain in Mississippi might not share in the large annuity to be paid those going to the western lands. Of a total of approximately 20,000 Choctaws affected by the treaty, about 5,000 chose to remain in Mississippi. Of the lands of the Choctaws in that State, allotment portions were guaranteed to those not removing, and it was further provided by article XVIII of the said treaty that no white person should settle on their lands or that such lands be sold to white settlers until the Choctaws should remove to their territory in the West. Malfeasance on the part of the then Indian agent in Mississippi was so gross and unjust with reference to the group who wished to stay in Mississippi that in spite of all efforts on the part of the Indians, only 143 of them ever received the allotments in Mississippi to which they were entitled. All the rest of the lands set aside for them were sold by the Federal Government without regard to their rights. Nevertheless, the Choctaws remaining in Mississippi and their descendants continued to occupy the region by bare sufferance and as tenants of the whites in poverty and backwardness forced upon them by necessity. The rights of these people were known in the Choctaw Nation and to the officials of the Government and from time to time were recognized by treaty and otherwise. Under the last treaty made with the Choctaw Nation on April 28, 1866 (14 Stat. 769), the right of the Mississippi Choctaws to share in the western lands in Oklahoma, if those lands should ever be allotted in severalty among the members of the tribe, was specifically recognized, and it was provided in said treaty (art. XIII) that notice of such division should be published in the State of Mississippi and each Mississippi Choctaw be notified to select his allotment and he was specifically given 5 years within which to settle thereon. In creating the Dawes Commission to allot in severalty the lands of the Choctaw Nation these provisions of the treaty of 1866 were ignored. On March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. 645), Congress created what is known as the Dawes Commission to make rolls for allotments of the Five Civilized Tribes, so that their lands could be divided in severalty. The Commission did that for the Choctaws in Oklahoma. However, they published no notice of their proceedings in Mississippi and made no attempt to communicate with the Mississippi Choctaws. It was generally recognized that the Commission should have done so. Therefore, on June 7, 1897 (30 Stat. 62, 83), Congress directed the Commission to investigate and report their status. The Commission did so report on January 28, 1898, and made recommendation that their claims be referred to the United States Court of Claims. Instead of doing this, Congress, on June 28, 1898 (30 Stat. 495), directed the Commission to make a roll of the Mississippi Choctaws entitled to rights under article XIV of the treaty of 1830. Pursuant to that authority, Commissioner McKennon made a report on March 10, 1899, to which he attached 1,925 names. On the basis of the McKennon roll, in which it is stated that upward of 500 full-blood Choctaws who lived in outlying settlements had not been contacted, Congress passed an act on May 31, 1900 (31 Stat. 221, 236), providing that if Mississippi Choctaws identified by the Commission whould go to the Indian territory at any time prior to approval of the final citizenship rolls by the Secretary of the Interior, they would be enrolled as Choctaws entitled to allotments. The Commission returned to Mississippi and held hearings and identified numerous Indians. Upon completion of the Commission's rolls, they were sent to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. The lists then sent up contained the names of 2,534 Indians. These lists were approved by the Secretary on February 14, 1903. In the meantime, Congress, on July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 641), after the hearings in Mississippi had closed, and all personal contacts of the Commission with these Indians had ended, passed an act changing the act of 1900, by reducing the period within which persons duly identified as Mississippi Choctaws could go to and settle in the Indian territory to 6 months after approval of their identification. In its proceedings the Commission found and stated that most of the Indians had made contracts with private individuals to move them to Indian territory when the time should arrive for them to go. By the direction of the Commission these private contracts were terminated by the Indians, in reliance upon promises that the Government would attend to all details of removal and transport them free of charge. After the approval on February 14, 1903, of the rolls of identification, including 2,534 names, on March 3, 1903, Congress appropriated $20,000 for the purpose of notifying and removing these Indians to the Indian Territory. When this approval of these rolls took place, these 2,534 identified Indians had to move and make their land selections in the Indian Territory on or before August 14, 1903. However, they were not notified of the approval of their identification or informed of the necessity of going to Indian Territory until after July 27 1903, since the agent sent to Mississippi for that purpose did not arrive in Meridian, Miss., or have the notices printed until that date. Those notices were not mailed out until some time after that date. Inaccessible to mail service as they were, and living in outlying sections as they did, unable to read or write the English language, few Indians received any notice at all, the majority of such notices being returned to the Dawes Commission unclaimed. Of the few who actually received notice, the large majority failed to get them until after the closing date specified by law, August 14, 1903. As a result, only 290 of these helpless Indians were actually moved by the Government under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1903. Subsequently, some of the Choctaws left in Mississippi moved to Oklahoma in the hope that the Government would recognize their rights and take care of them in spite of the fact that the prescribed period for removal had expired. The Department of the Interior held that no authority existed for making allotments to them, and did nothing for them. Most of these Indians went to Texas and settled in small communities, principally within the Fourth Congressional District of Texas, where they and their descendants still remain. Large numbers of others who lost out because of the failure of notice within the prescribed period continued to live principally in Mississippi and also in Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and perhaps elsewhere. Under an act of Congress passed on June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 537), as amended in 1926 (44 Stat. 568), the Choctaw Nation was authorized to sue in the United States Court of Claims on any claim of the Choctaw Nation against the United States. These Mississippi Choctaw claimants filed a petition for intervention in that case, setting up the claims described in the present proposed act. A motion made by the Attorney General of the United States to dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction was granted by the Court of Claims. However, the court in entering its final judgment an the case had occasion to pass on the merits of their claims and in its final opinion states their contention based on article XIV of the treaty of 1830 and sustains it in every particular. Among other things, the court said: "The article is seemingly free from ambiguity. The rights conferred are positive ones, defined with a degree of precision apparently incapable of misapprehension, and notwithstanding this fact the large number of Indians who remained in the State were subjected to a series of maladministration of the article by accredited representatives of the United States that in and of itself discloses an inexcusable, cruel, and unjust procedure never excelled, if equaled, in the history of Indian affairs. * ** "The only property loss to be suffered by those who did remain was a denial of participation in the annuities provided for in the treaty." This decision contains a correct interpretation of article XIV of the treaty of 1830. A petition for certioriari was denied by the Supreme Court, so that this decision stands as the only authoritative judicial interpretation of the rights of these claimants. It was their misfortune that the jurisdictional act which Congress passed in 1926 was so restricted in its language that the Court was unable to take jurisdiction over their claims and to enter a judgment which would have settled this whole controversy without the necessity for coming back to Congress for additional legislation. OPINION It is the unanimous opinion of your subcommittee that the Mississippi Choctaws have been denied substantive rights, have been the subjects of discrimination, and we believe that they, in equity and justice, are entitled to an opportunity to present their claims for determination before a judicial tribunal. It should be borne in mind that in the event the Court of Claims shall find in their favor, payment of the judgment cannot be made until appropriation for that purpose is provided by Congress. ANALYSIS OF THE BILL The bill (S. 1478) contains eight sections. Section 1 confers jurisdiction upon the terms and conditions therein stated. The remaining sections are procedural. In order that the lengthy provisions of section 1 may be readily understood the following quotation of the language of section 1 is made without amendment, but so subdivided that it may be more easily understood: "That the Court of Claims be, and it is hereby, authorized and directed to hear and determine all claims against the United States of the Choctaw Indians of the State of Mississippi "1. based "(a) upon the provisions of any treaty or agreement with or statute of the United States, or "(b) upon the failure of the United States to recognize or fairly and adequately to provide for the settlement of any interest, vested or contingent, of the aforesaid Choctaw Indians in administering or liquidating the assets or property of the Choctaw Nation and allotting in severalty the lands of said nation and distributing its property to the individual citizens of said nation enrolled on its final approved citizenship rolls, 2. or for indemnification to the extent of the aggregate average value of the interest in any lands lost by them, as to which they shall be entitled to recover if the said court shall find that "(a) by treaty provisions or by acts of Congress, they would have been entitled to share therein upon identification and removal to and residence in the Choctaw Nation, and "(b) that the performance of any of these necessary conditions prior to the final closing of the citizenship rolls was prevented by the United States or by its officers or agents, "(1) by their neglect, "(2) misrepresentation, '(3) failure to provide adequate or timely aid in removal after advising them against or obstructing private aid in their removal and the giving of assurances that the Government would so provide for their removal, "(c) disapproval of a general roll of identification embracing more than five hundred of the present claimants without consideration of the merits of their application for identification, (d) failure to exercise reasonable diligence to give actual notice to many of said Indians of the limitations placed by Congress upon the exercise of their treaty rights, "(e) or by any other acts, conduct, or omissions not consistent with the rules of fair an honorable dealing with Indians under the circumstances and conditions then existing." In the proviso to this section, any claims against the Choctaw Nation of Indians in Oklahoma are expressly excluded. Section 2 recognizes the status of these Indians to sue in a representative capacity. Section 3 provides a limitation of 2 years for the filing of the suit authorized by the act. Section 4 provides for the determination of the case in accordance with the usual principles applied to the determination of Indian claims. Section 5 requires subsequent legislation by Congress to appropriate and determine the disposition of the fund in the event a judgment is rendered, and provides for the court to fix compensation of attorneys on a quantum meruit basis not to exceed 10 percent for all services and expenses. Section 6 authorizes any counterclaim of the United States to be considered. Section 8 defines the term "Choctaws of the State of Mississippi" as used in the act. It excludes all Choctaws on the citizenship roll of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma. It includes those finally identified on any approved rolls of Mississippi Choctaws and also includes those Choctaw Indians who, on July 1, 1902, were resident in their former homes in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, and their descendants. Submitted herewith is a copy of the favorable Senate report on the bill. [S. Rept. No. 997, 75th Cong., 1st sess.] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1478) providing for the conferring jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claims of the Choctaw Indians of the State of Mississippi, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment: On page 5, strike out all of section 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "SEC. 5. That the amount of any judgment rendered in said cause when appropriated shall be set aside as a special fund to be paid or disbursed only upon such terms and conditions as Congress may by its subsequent legislation direct: Provided, however, That in entering its final judgment in said cause the Court of Claims shall hear and determine the amount, not to exceed 10 per centum of the amount of any final award, which on a quantum meruit basis it shall find to be a reasonable compensation for the respective services and expenses of James E. Arnold as the representative, and of William E. Richardson and Thomas E. Rhodes as attorneys for said Indians, heretofore rendered or which may hereafter be rendered in the suit authorized by the provisions of this Act, and shall as a part of said judgment award so much thereof as may be necessary to pay said compensation and reimbursement upon the basis herein directed to such person or persons respectively as the said court may find entitled thereto." Á similar bill (S. 2715) was favorably reported by this committee in the Seventyfourth Congress (S. Rept. 781). That bill, with certain amendments which have been incorporated in the present bill, was favorably reported by the House Committee on Indian Affairs on April 15, 1936 (H. Rept. 2415, 74th Cong., 2d sess.). The purpose of this bill is to provide a judicial means of permitting these Indians, upon proof of the facts they allege to be true, to obtain compensation for the alleged neglect of their rights and failure of the appropriate officers of the United States to properly administer the provisions of treaties and laws intended for their protection, and to conserve their Indian status, and by this substitution of a settlement for the rights so lost, indemnify them to that small extent. For a period of 86 years, from 1830 to 1918, the Government did not recognize these people as having any Indian status, with the result that the saving of ordinary appropriations for their benefit has amounted to many times the amount of their present claim. These Indians attempted in 1926 to intervene, and did set up a claim, in the case of the Choctaw Nation against the United States, then pending in the Court of Claims. Their petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On January 14, 1935, when the Court of Claims rendered its final opinion in the Choctaw Nation case, referring to those Choctaws who remained in Mississippi under the supposed protection of article XIV of the treaty of 1830, the Court of Claims said: "The article is seemingly free from ambiguity. The rights conferred are positive ones, defined with a degree of precision apparently incapable of misapprehension, and notwithstanding this fact the large number of Indians who remained in the State were subjected to a series of maladministration of the article by accredited representatives of the United States that in and of itself discloses an inexcus able, cruel, and unjust procedure never excelled, if equaled, in the history of Indian affairs. * * * In his report on this bill, the Secretary of the Interior recommends the amendment of that part of section 5, authorizing the Court of Claims to determine the amount of attorney fees upon a quantum meruit basis, by requiring that counsel to be authorized to prosecute the case before the Court of Claims shall first enter into contracts to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior under the statutory |